TTT!!!

[Ike]

so I know it was mentioned before but I thought I would bring it up in its own thread..

TTT.. I like it but we have run into one problem

Ship A declares TTT on target B, and boresights C

B being a juicer target then C
it seems kind of contradictory that if after having declared TTT and failing or B not coming within range or arc you can still fire on C

thoughts... opinions?

oh and CQ9 is annoying too but I can live with that one

 

[Ripple]

All depends on what you think a failure means. To me it means if you fail, you realize you won't be able to manage the shot and take the next best target and break off the turn.

Makes sense when you think about that you make the roll at the beginning of the move, the 'target' is also moving at the same time in theory, so you can see whether you will make it or not.

From a mechanic point of view, if the CQ roll was lower, it might be alright to go with more restrictions. As is, a one third chance to shoot at all, or a one third chance to pick between two targets (depending on opponents move) seems okay to me.

Ripple

 

[CZuschlag]

Ike,

Consider that (typically) any ship that boresights a target and declares TTT on another is giving away the benefits of CBD, which most boresight ships use prolifically (Narn, Omega, Warlock, some Drazi, sometimes the Marathon; my experience is that the Hyperion just tends to go for it with all the pulse and plasma on board).

The loss of CBD is a LOT to give up; I never give it up without an outstanding reason. As it stands, it is the most powerful SA in the game.

 

[Ike]

I was thinking mostly with the Varnic and marathon, which is where the whole thing came up, tried a second try for playtesting the narn CBD

Earth took a different setup this time, in anycase there was one point where my varnics came in on his apollos and after some discusion attempted TTT on the marathon 2 of the 4 suceeded, the marathon in turn was going to boresight the varnics and TTT on a GQuan... then he remembered the apollos adrifted Admiral GKraks GTal last turn and CBD/boresighted it... at which point he got 3 gquans boresighting him... sadly he did not survive long enough after that to shoot or be shot at by the varnics

i would post the battle but it wasnt very memorable...admiral GKrak got killed

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I've been pulling the same trick of boresighting a backup target when trying to use TTT. I've lodged a complaint about it being horribly cheesily broken, but noone on here has seemed too bothered about it as far as I remember.
The thing that surprises me is that people complain about TTT not halving the AD, and not having enough of a drawback. If you had to risk not getting to use your main gun in order to use TTT, then it would make it more balanced, even if the CQ target was reduced to 8.

CZuschlag: The problem with CBD and boresighting your secondary target is that you have no chance of hitting your main target. In that respect, not being able to use CBD is a small price to pay for the chance of putting the damage where you want it.

 

[CZuschlag]

Yes ... if you make the check! If you don't, you've put a big bulls-eye on the ship in question.

If balanced right, it's hard judgment call. Maybe we're there... maybe we're not.

 

[Burger]

If failing the CQ check for TTT means no firing at all, then it will never be used.
CQ checks for SA's are always performed at the start of the movement phase anyway, so if you succeed you can perform the SA, if you fail you can move and shoot normally (except Run Silent which has exceptions in its rules).

 

[CZuschlag]

I was referring to failing the check in terms of costing you the opportunity to leverage CBD only. It's still a substantial loss.

 

[Burger]

Oh yeah, I was referring ot the OP not you CZ
You're right, CBD is a lot to give up... losing your firing and CBD opportunity would be even more!

 

[nekomata fuyu]

If failing the CQ check for TTT means no firing at all, then it will never be used.

That partially depends on the chances involved. Seriously, if I have the option of using TTT and having a 50% chance of using my main gun, or the option of not using TTT and using my main gun on a target I really wasn't wanting to bother with, I will seriously consider using TTT.
Instead at the moment I've been finding TTT to be more of a no brainer though. I can quite happily use TTT safe in the knowledge that even if I do fail my main gun will be hurting whatever I would have had to hurt anyway.

Here's one of the best setups I've found for TTT:
- Take a squadron of 4 boresight dependant ships of around the same PL or one lower than the battle (4 G'Quans were in my last War battle). Try and include at least one ship of CQ 5 or 6.
- With such a meaty squadron, you will probably be outsinked, but hold off moving the squadron until as late as possible to get the juiciest backup target available.
- TTT with the squadron, targetting your main target and boresighting the backup target.
- As your very first act of the firing phase, unleash all hell.

I've pretty much just sidestepped the main drawback of using a squadron, whilst keeping the advantage of unleashing half a fleet worth of firepower before the enemy can really retaliate. Throw in that out of all the ships of a chosen type on my roster, I most likely have 1 CQ5 ship (maybe CQ6), and the trick just gets better.

 

[Foxmeister]

A squadron of 4 Psi-Corp Motherships at +1 CQ would be very nasty indeed!

Personally, I prefer half AD at a lower CQ, but that does rather nerf the ships with an odd number of AD on the beam.

An alternative might be to say that TTT cannot be performed by a ship in a squadron as it is too busy coordinating its actions with the other ships in the squadron to effectively TTT.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Ripple]

This is actually why I preferred the original TTT. It allowed you to pick a target and TTT to get the option to fire at a secondary target by giving up your other SA options. The secondary target could only be engage with half AD.

This allowed bore sighted ships to not be completely screwed by losing initiative (mostly Drazi here) or being out sinked.

It allowed bore sighted ships to have some flexibility in attack (say you kill you target with the first ship to fire, all other ships targeting it don't waste their main guns).

You still paid for it with lost opportunities for other SA's and only half AD if you took the off bore shot.

Now, even at 50-50, I wouldn't risk not being able to shoot at all, so would only use it if the only way to get a shot at all was to use TTT as proposed.

Ripple

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I know that version of TTT was half AD against your primary target (the one which you can't boresight), but wasn't it worded so that if you chose not to fire at your primary target, you could still fire with full AD against you secondary (boresighted) target.
If they closed that up so that to TTT you could only use half AD regardless of who you chose to fire at in the end, that would be more acceptable. Then again, it wouldn't be massively different from getting to use full AD half the time, and no AD the other half...

 

[Ripple]

That was true, but thought that was poor wording and was the part that would have been tightened up, not the wholesale change we got.

I assume the 1/2 AD would only be if you succeed at the order... just wanted that to be clear.

And it would still be massively different to me, as I would be choosing when to try it and when not based on different things. Crunch power is a big deal in the game... getting a lot of AD on something at once time is big... look at the discussions of slow loading to some of the reasoning.

Ripple

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Give it full AD when you fail, and you still have problems similar to what you have now. A failure should mean that you can't use your main gun to full effect.

 

[Burger]

Why?

If we're setting the precedent that failing an SA should have a penalty, then shouldn't a CAF failure mean you lose half your ADs too?

 

[Foxmeister]

Give it full AD when you fail, and you still have problems similar to what you have now. A failure should mean that you can't use your main gun to full effect.

I don't disagree with you here as this would certainly reflect the "fluff", but it does open up a can of worms with respect to SAs.

Apart from Silent Running, if you fail an SA, there is no negative effect. So, if I try to Come About to boresight a target, but fail, I'm still free to boresight a completely different target if I wish with no negative effects, and this target may well be in the opposite direction to the one I wanted to "Come About" on.

Regards,

Dave

 

[CZuschlag]

The only SA that I know of that carries a penalty when you fail is Run Silent!.

No one uses Run Silent.

Think there's any connection between those two facts? Couldn't be.

If you fail a TTT, no penalty, period.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I'd use Run Silent if the penalty wasn't quite so extreme for too limited an advantage. I'd only use it in very specific situations even if it didn't have the penalties for failure.
The problem isn't that you still have the drawback if you fail - the problem is that they haven't balanced the drawback and the advantage in the first place.

 

[Burger]

So what about the other SAs, that have no drawback? As Foxmeister said, Come About, if you fail you can face a completely different target if you like. CAF, if you fail you can shoot multiple targets with no penalty. All Hands On Deck, if you fail you can still attempt to repair one crit as normal. Ramming speed, if you fail you don't automatically overshoot and can still shoot normally! Scramble, if you fail you can still launch.

All of these SAs offer significant advantages, yet have no drawback whatsoever (except for using up your SA, of course). Why should all of these have no drawback, yet TTT does? Your arguement about the advantage and drawback being balanced is totally void!